Manx

But clearly you consider being gay to be an extra perversion. If you do not favor gay marriage because you disapprove of public perversion, and then you go on to list what you consider to be some heterosexual perversions, you must surely disfavor heterosexual marriage - for most certainly hetersexual behavior is EXTREMELY public (whether you personally get arrested for it or not). Somewhere around 99% of all public signs of affection and intimacy, on television, print, radio or in the park, are heterosexual in nature. But you don't consider that unecessarily public to the degree that you oppose their right to marry. So clearly you consider homosexual behavior to be beyond simply perverted in the sense that everyone is perverted.

Which means your excuse of perversion is no longer valid or you are simply anti-gay, in which case you are a bigot.

JumpinJesus

I think the "can of worms" so many people seem so terrified of opening contains their own insecurities and mirror reflections of their own ages-old bigotry. No one likes to have to admit that they're on the wrong side of justice and equality; some are more reluctant to face that about themselves than others. Some are so intent on preserving that facet of their psyche that they're willing to resort to violence to protect it.

The rhetoric that proclaims that allowing one group of citizens to engage in the exact same activity that every other citizen legally engages in is a "special right" is beyond disingenous and borders on the insanely asinine. If this were a "special" right for gays, then they would be the only group allowed to enjoy this right. The fact that everyone in this nation except gays are allowed to marry is proof enough that they are not receiving equal treatment under the law. Those holding to the "special rights" argument is either an outright liar or grossly naive.

Not a single argument made against allowing civil unions holds water when scrutinized under the microscope of logic and reason.

The matter is plain and simple. Those against recognizing that gay couples be allowed to enjoy the same rights as other citizens are basing their arguments not on logic and reason but on emotion - namely fear. History has shown innumerable times the wisdom of basing public policy on fear.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

roachboy

irate: your distinction is baseless, above.
marriaga is a legal institution predicated (in this context) on questions of love committment, etc. if you think that something seperate than that is at stake in the question of whether people who happen to be gay can afford themselves and their ehirs the legal protections afforded throug marriage, you are fooling yourself.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

tecoyah

I suppose a gay couple could just hire a lawyer and have a document drawn up to do this:

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
t status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.


Should only cost a couple thousand dollars, and maybe half a year.
Interesting.......my marriage liscence cost me all of $15 and I got it that day.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

alansmithee

I didn't see you comment on the "religious crazys" comment earlier in the thread. What makes that any less low and insulting (although judging by most posts it is keeping with the spirit of this board)? Apparently Christians aren't to be allowed the same civility as gays.

More on topic, this is just the first in a number of appeals. IIRC, the NY Supreme court isn't actually the highest in the state, the highest is called the Court of appeals. Meaning this is only a preliminary judgement. A similar thing happened in Florida, where an initial pro-gay ruling was overturned upon appeal.

Willravel

Christians are more than welcome to believe what they (we) want, so long as it doesn't persecute poeple. I am a Christian, but I also think that being gay isn't a sin, it's a way of life. It's not better or worse than heterosexuality. Just like Christians don't kill people for not beliveing in God, I choose to see the part of the bible that condems homosexuality as what it is: cultural leftovers from when men allowed their beliefs to enter the bible along with the word of God. Somehow God doesn't seem the type to presecute people, as it's usually the followers who are responsible for any persecution.

Mojo_PeiPei

For the record, any decent and informed catholic knows that being gay isn't a sin. The sin is in homosexual sex, gay's aren't allowed to marry, marriage is reserved for man and woman as the foundation for family and life, gay's can't have kids, gay's can't marry, no sex without marriage. Boom.

Just give them the civil unions and be done with it already.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

Since everyone here is talking about Christains I feel I should post what the bible says about this.

Romans 1:26-27

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with out men, and recieved in themselfs the due penaly for their perversion.


Here are a few things I think Christians should take out of this verse that most do not. First God gave them over to their sins. God let them become like they are, in fact he intended them to do so. Second they have already recieved their due penalty for their perversion. It is not our duty as christians to punish people who are gay, the bible does not tell us to do that. What the bible does tell us to do is love them as ourselfs. Love the sinners says the bible. Jesus came down for the sinners not the righteous. Perhaps those of you who call yourselfs Christians should consider that before you are so quick to be bigots.

Willravel

Thank you for illustrating my point. Christianity is not by any means a reason for bigotry. Bigorty comes from ignorance and fear alone, so leave God out of it.

smooth

No, I think you should do all of that.

I don't know about all these breaks, though, I've always heard of a marriage penalty.
But perhaps that is just with school. Since my wife and I are students, that could explain the lack of breaks.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

lol, well for the record, neither my wife nor myself have exchanged anything. We enjoy our shameful lusts and unnatural relations in addition to our natural relations

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

alansmithee

My point wasn't about Christianity and its beliefs, it was about the fact that stating someone's beliefs about homosexuality in terms that aren't glowing is considered bigotry and gains warnings from moderators, but people are allowed to post whatever they feel about Christians without repercussions. People routinely label Christians as fanatics, crazys, ignorant, and even more inflammatory terms but if someone dares speak any word against homosexuality they are likened to Hitler.

tecoyah

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order.
There is a difference between a Glowing portrayal, and calling a class of people Perverted. Context is quite important in these types of debates, and judgement calls are made based on member posting history, as well as thread content. As far as Christian bashing......We do not take kindly to any inflamatory statement, regardless of who/what it is directed at. There is a fine line between open debate, and nasty argument, we try very hard to allow you all to walk that line. It is VERY important to let members know when they have crossed it.
The Moderator staff here maintains the civility so many enjoy, and rarely find on the internet. And that civility is meant to encompass all who come here, no matter the background, as long as they adhere to community rules. If indeed you feel persecuted by ANYONE.........staff included.......report it and it will be dealt with.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

matthew330

"Just give them the civil unions and be done with it already."

Praise the lord. Unfortunately, this is one of those demographics that thrives on their own persecution, regardless of the extent to which it exists.....

"the christian right wants to dictate who other people can choose to love.
it is as simple as that.
even as they wave the flag and talk about "freedom" they want to dictate who others can choose to love.
great program, folks.
you should be proud."

Wow, no offense...but that's the most ignorant thing i've ever heard you say. You're gay aren't you? (that was a joke)

filtherton

Are you talking about homosexuals or the religious right? There are some in every demographic who thrive on their own persecution. Ever heard a white male blame affirmative action for all of their woes? Ever heard a christian fundamentalist claim that the morality of america is threatened by effeminate children's how characters?

matthew330

"Ever heard a white male blame affirmative action for all of their woes?"

Nope, no sir i haven't.....and i'm seriously doubting that you have as well.

theusername

I'm in favor of gays marrying. However, we live in a democracy and maybe it's time we listen to the majority of Americans on this issue at least. Civil Unions with benefits? Ok. Marriage? No. Is that so hard? I believe that the gay community should take what they can get. In 20 years people may adjust a little. In the 1950's no one ever thought this is a topic that would be even be discussed. Gays should demand Civil Unions and equal rights now, worry about the rest later.

__________________
?

JumpinJesus

This may not be the best analogy, but every time I hear arguments in favor of civil unions and against marriage I keep thinking "separate but equal".

It may be a bit overblown, since the level of discrimination doesn't reach that high, but the notion - to an extent - is still there.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Halx

My only reasoning as to why this keeps being disputed is the fact that many people refuse to accept the rules of the constitution that they live under. Our nation's constitution, in more words than this, tells us that we are free to live in peace with our fellow man in equality. If men are not being treated equally, then we should adjust our treatment of *them*, not the constitution.

Does anyone have a rational arguement against me?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

daswig

At the risk of being branded a "bigot" again, I'm going to wade back in. You list (or cut and paste) a whole bunch of incentives for people to get married/benefits of being married. Not heterosexual people, not homosexual people, but people in general (this is important because some homosexuals do indeed currently get married to members of the opposite sex and are reaping the state-granted benefits of marriage, and they've been doing so since marriage came into existence).

Looking at your list, you'd think that the state had some "compelling governmental interest" to encourage people to get married. Otherwise, why would they be in the marriage game at all? I mean isn't marriage a religious institution that's been recognized by the State? I wonder what it could be.... Hmm...The courts have said CHILDREN. Yes, indeed, the State has been deemed to have a "compelling governmental interest" (it's "legalese", I know, but hey, sometimes you have to use the words that the courts have used to get the idea across) to encourage people to procreate, and to create and encourage the formation and continuation of stable homes for those children, so that the species does not disappear or begin turning out even larger hordes of poorly socialized kids that the State then has to either care for or incarcerate.

Now we undoubtedly could all agree that the State has no business checking up on the health of people who want to be married, right? (Or am I stepping on some unknown psychic landmine with this assumption? Only time will tell.) So the State can't check the fertility of the parents before they get married, since that would be an unwarranted medical intrusion, right?

And we'd all most likely agree that the State couldn't require actual live offspring from a union before such a union became "legally blessed", right? Therefore, requiring statements of intent to procreate is out, right? So what do they do to encourage people to breed within the confines of a long-term stable family structure? They offer "bennies". No, not the pharmaceutical kind, the financial incentive kind (if this offends the pro-drug crowd, I apologize in advance. I LIKE drugs, and take as many as my physician prescribes for me, so PLEASE DON'T LYNCH ME for saying this even in a figurative sense, 'k???).

Now why would there be a need for the State to offer bennies to get people to breed within a structure of a married family? Could it be that a conventionally structured family is one of the most cost-effective and proven ways (in an across the board sense) of producing healthy, well socialized future adults? Could it be that so-called "broken homes" or "single-parent homes" don't do as good a job (in an across the board sense) of raising healthy, well socialized future adults? Are there exceptions to this? Sure. But as a rule, this "conventional wisdom" appears to hold true.

So, the State recognizes marriage between couples who potentially might be able to breed in an effort to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society as a whole (the conception and raising of children who will become productive, well adjusted members of society, as opposed to kids who end up in jail at State expense because they come from a broken home). You'll notice that in most States, the husband of a woman who gives birth is presumed to be the father of the child even if he is not, which is how you end up with situations where the husband of an adulterous wife ends up paying child support for a child that he is not the biological father of. The State does not recognize marriages because, well, gosh, it gives us warm fuzzy feelings to see people married, and weddings stimulate the flower and wedding-cake industries, and they SURE as hell don't recognize it to get the 15 bucks.

It's a simple "carrot and stick" approach. The State offers the carrot (bennies) to get people to form long-term breeding pair families, and the stick (loss of marriage benefits, plus alimony, child support, social stigma, et cetera) to keep people from breaking up their families. This is why divorce rules differ in many states between married couples who have produced offspring and married couples that haven't produced offspring. It's generally a longer process to dissolve a marriage with kids involved than one without kids involved, not because it has to be, but because, once again, the State has a "compelling governmental interest" in keeping these family units together if it's at all possible. And people who breed outside of the confines of marriage generally do not get the same level of bennies from the government that people who breed within the confines of marriage do, right?

Are you with me so far?

Now we get into the whole gay marriage issue. Now obviously, same sex couples generally can not produce offspring between the two parties of the marriage, right? (This isn't "bigotry", it's "biology".) And since marriages of same-sex couples cannot produce children without some intervening third party (and incidentally, for the parties to produce offspring, there would have to be adultery with a person of another gender, something the State doesn't want to encourage, probably because of the "bleed-over" affect saying "adultery is OK in our book if it produces children!" would have amongst heterosexual couples, and remember, the State has a "compelling governmental interest" in encouraging that NOT to happen, the idea is to produce children who then live with both biological parents, rather than to encourage the production of children through infidelity, which may very well result in the dissolution of the marriage) , why would the government want to provide incentives to form such families or to keep such families together? What, exactly, is the "compelling governmental interest" that would allow the State to get involved in a religious issue and recognize same-sex marriages? It's not enough to simply say "heterosexual couples get bennies for being married, so homosexual couples should be able to marry and get the same bennies", since the bennies are there not "just because", but rather to encourage a certain specific conduct (being a married couple in a stable long-term relationship) which is geared towards producing a concrete biological result (children) that are socially well adjusted. And please keep in mind that the carrot isn't there for married heterosexual couples permanently....if they stop the conduct that the bennies are there to encourage (ie being married to promote breeding and provide a stable home environment for those kids) the bennies disappear.

daswig

I think you're greatly oversimplifying the Constitution. If it says we're free to live in peace with our fellow man in equality, doesn't that mandate a complete redistribution of wealth and a voiding of personal property, or a complete lack of discrimination in employment (before you freak, think about it. If all men are truly to be treated equally, what's to prevent a junior high school dropout from declaring himself to be a surgeon and operating on people, or somebody who has never been on an airplane opening his own air charter service with him as the pilot) or a wide variety of things that it clearly doesn't intend?

In all 50 states, a homosexual is legally free to marry any person of the opposite sex who can legally be married. There are lots of people who can not legally get married to their potential partner of choice. These include but are not limited to cases of incest even if both parties are consenting and of age, or bigamists or polygamists, or people who wish to marry a person not of age. They all have the same rights as everybody else: There's a statute which specifies what constitutes a legally valid marriage, and anything else which doesn't meet the criteria doesn't count as a valid marriage in the eyes of the law. I recall a case recently from overseas where a woman wished to marry her recently and unexpectedly deceased fiancee, so that she could take his name. Under the statute, such a marriage was prohibited, so the legislature basically passed an "in this specific case only" law to allow it.

Under DOMA, IIRC, marriage is explicitly defined as a union between one man and one woman. That's the law. If people don't like it, they can lobby to change it, just as they can lobby to legalize any other form of currently prohibited marriage, or any other law they don't like. But I wouldn't suggest holding your breath waiting for it to happen.

Manx

daswig -

No one would label you a bigot if you did not act like one. This latest post of yours, although not on the surface bigotted, is an attempt at excusing the act of limiting the rights of gays. In that sense, it is almost a complete divergence from your previous posts in this thread which have focused exclusively on the various forms of the act of sex. You received the, accurate, label of bigot for your opinions that gay couples are above and beyond the "normal" perverted nature of breeder couples and therefore should not be given the same rights as breeder couples.

Now your tune is that the gov't is attempting to promote reproduction. This is clearly an attempt on your part at logically excusing your known bigotry. The gov't is not in the business of promoting reproduction - if it were, a heterosexual couple who have created a child would receive benefits, not simply the generic heterosexual couple, who may or may not be reproducing. Additionally, you ignored the aspect of adoption. If it were the case that the gov't was promoting reproduction (though it is not) the gov't would also assuredly promote adoption by providing benefits to couples, regardless of sexuality, who adopt - it saves the gov't from having to care for orphaned children and puts orphaned children in an environment (whether that be with a hetero or gay couple) that is far more capable of producing a "quality" adult than an orphanage. But the gov't does not give benefits to couples who adopt, beyond the minimal benefits the gov't already provides for couples (heterosexual) who have children. Marriage is an entirely seperate issue to children in the eyes of the gov't. The support for marriage is based on the false pretense of some underlying religion to our gov't. And it is propogated in this day by bigots, particularly those who produce 8 paragraphs attempting to excuse their bigotry.

smooth

well dawsig, you couldn't possibly have based your conjecture on the large corpus of literature studying "traditional" versus "broken" homes and crime rates. Why can I say that? Well, for one, it doesn't support what you said.

You're just flat wrong. Next time preface your conjecture with acknowledgement that you are just opining rather than trying to pass your opinion off as though you had read it in a scientific journal.

Feel free to refute what I just stated with citations of the peer-reviewed criminology journals you obtained your information from. I'll look them up and post the content in this thread.



*still wondering about all these financial benefits from my marriage.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

Manx,

As incorrect as Dawsig is in his opinion regarding the linkage between "traditional" families and crime rates, he appears to be correct on at least some of the language the US Supreme Court's majority opinion claims in regard to encouraging child bearing and family rearing as a compelling state interest.

The dissenting opinion, however, in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) claimed "We protect those rights not because they contribute, in some direct and material way, to the general public welfare, but because they form so central a part of an individual's life. [T]he concept of privacy embodies the moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole."

That was the dissenting opinion, however, and was not established as the correct view until about 15 years later in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

All that said, the Supreme Court has so far recognized that stretching back into common law England, our laws have recognized the importance of child-bearing and rearing and established punishments for sexual acts not intended to procreate. Not until the late 19th century, however, has there been a distinction between hetero and homosexual acts that were done without the purpose of procreation.

Sodomy laws, for example, were actually aimed at married couples who performed non-procreational acts of sex in the bedroom. Although rarely punished, mainly because the complaining party was also considered an accomplice in the act according to English common law.

The fact remains, however, that the courts agree there exists a compelling state interest to regulate marriage--but the reasons vary. Sometimes due to procreation and child-rearing, as our common law heritage attests to, but sometimes just to uphold the moral opinion of the people, as Scalia and Thomas argue in their dissenting opinions of the case I referenced above.

Whether homosexuals can or can not procreate, adopt, or adequately rear children is a more profitable discussion, in my opinion, since that is sometimes the legal hinge these marriage rights are being denied upon--at least by the people within certain states. What they have argued is that the right to privacy is limited to matters of "family, marriage, or procreation." But now the argument has changed to propose that homosexual acts (and marriage rides in on the tailcoats, even though O' Conner tried to squelch it while concurring with the majority) fall under equal protection. While religious reasoning may be the underlying logic of the justices, it certainly can not be stated in such terms jurisprudentially.

Force their hand.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

filtherton

I may refer you to any one of the threads about affirmative action.

martinguerre

daswig may want to review marbury vs. madison.

just because something is "The Law" does not mean it is not subject to review by the courts. This is a long standing part of American political and legal life.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

daswig

Please quote where I said that homosexual couples are "above and beyond the 'normal' perverted nature of breeder couples". Have you actually ever READ the statutes regarding what is considered legal or "normal" sex? I have what I would consider to be a fairly "vanilla" sex life. Yet under the criminal code of the State that I live in, my tastes are probably 80% illegal, even though I'm married to the other party and am heterosexual. For example, oral sex is illegal. It doesn't matter what the combination is....man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, it's all statutorily banned. If the standard for what "normal" sex is constitutes "sex which is not illegal", then my sexual appetites are abnormal, which is why I self-classify as a pervert.

They're not in the business of ONLY promoting reproduction, they're also in the business of trying to keep families together. It's a multi-pronged issue. That's why, all other things being equal, a single mother with one child gets fewer financial "bennies" than a married couple with one child.

Adoption is viewed as a different issue, and a far less optimal solution than the child being with his or her biological parents. Yet even so, when one adopts a child, they do get certain financial bennies, such as the dependent status on their tax returns. If a married couple adopts, they get the full bennie package as if the child was indeed their own biological offspring.

So you're saying the bennies of marriage and children are suddenly "minimal"? If the combined bennies are so minimal, then why all the fuss over a fraction of them that comes with marriage?

As for your explicitly accusing me of being a bigot, well, there's only one response I can give you:

martinguerre

didn't see that part of the thread, apologies for double postage. i don't always comment on it because that one also hits home. Being Baptist and queer means that sometimes seems like there's damn few people in the world who don't hassle me in some way shape or form for my idenity.

i don't give up on either fight. check my postings, and i think you'll see that.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

smooth

yes dawsig, but you know as well as I do that your state's statutes exist as legal only because they fail to distinguish between the sexes engaging in the act.

The Texas discriminatory statute was the door opener to the equal protection argument of homosexuals.

martinguerre, in all fairness, I'm certain dawsig is well aware of marbury v. madison. he is an attorney, after all. and wouldn't be worth squat if he didn't


The thing I can't remember is whether the court came up with judicial review in regards to anything other than acts of congress. Of course, that whole fiasco was political and still contested as a properly reasoned legal argument. Brilliant, one could argue, but not particularly sound.

I don't quite remember if it provided the reasoning for judicial review of state enacted legislature, though. perhaps dawsig will post the info for me and save me digging through my past notes instead allowing me to work on my family & law section due next week

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

martinguerre

no...i get it. but the point i'm trying to draw is that he is assuming that popularist support is the only authority, second to the courts. i suggest that if we're being realistic...it's not that way and hasn't been for some time.

activist judges? Marshall was the granddaddy of 'em all. and i think part of the blessing of that...there are curses as well...is that sometimes we don't have to wait as a nation for everyone to realize that it's not okay to be bigots.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

daswig

Are you suggesting that DOMA has been judicially challenged and overturned? Cite, please.

Until a law has been SUCCESSFULLY challenged and overturned by the courts, it's still considered valid law.

Halx

I'm oversimplifying? You're overcomplicating!

The world is not a hard place to live in if you stop cluttering it with exceptions. The only words that should affect anyone's opinion of anything are: hurt and help.

and yes, it IS that simple.

Thank you and good night.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

guy44

I can't even believe some of the discussions going on in this board. Let me boil this one down:

All couples deserve the right to marry. To deny same-sex couples this is bigoted.

The end.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

daswig

If that's so, then should the hypothetical mother/son or father/daughter couple be allowed to marry if they're both over the age of consent? If not, why not?

daswig

The Constitution and BoR are very complicated. If it was simple, there wouldn't be any debate about it, it'd all have been resolved by now.

In my experience, there are very few things which are truly "black and white" with no areas of grey.

Halx

Hey, why not?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Halx

They're only complicated because people are too obsessed with creating rules for their life and the lives of others (control) to just LIVE and BE - because none of this really fucking matters, does it?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

daswig

Thanks for putting a smile on my face, Halx!!!

Manx

You didn't state it in those words, rather, you stated it in your first post of this thread and your subsequent follow up post. That you contradict yourself may confuse your opinion of what you have stated, but it does not confuse my opinion of what you have stated.

Yes, you are repeating yourself now. So apparently, since you are perverted, you oppose your own marriage just as you oppose the marriage due to perversion of gay couples. Since I doubt you oppose your own marriage but you do oppose gay marriage, you must be telling me that gay sex is above and beyond the perversion that you practice yourself. This is that contradiction I pointed out to you, twice now. This is your bigotry, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
This is illogical. If the gov't was not primarily interested in promoting what it views as morally appropriate behavior, it would heavily promote adoption, above and beyond the methods by which it promotes childless marriage. It is far more in the interest of gov't, as you have described, to provide more palatable environments for orphans than it is to promote the joining of a man and woman, who may or may not breed. An orphan already exists and can benefit immediately if the gov't actually intended to promote the well being of children in this manner. The effectively round-about manner of promoting marriage to promote "healthy" children is highly inefficient.
Obviously I'm not suprised. Just to note, I am not accusing you of anything. I am pointing out the accurate label for the opinions you have expressed.

Halx

I'm serious! Why not? I personally wouldn't do it, but it wouldn't bother me if someone did.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]